This is the latest response from my ESD in our exchange about feminism. It’s interesting for me to read his point-of-view because it does differ so much from my own and that’s a difference we’ll doubtfully ever reconcile. But that’s okay. I consider it progress that he and I (or others like us) can communicate with one another on these topics. While neither of us can be coerced into embracing the other’s view, growth is always a possibility. How do I know what I’m up against unless I listen? How can he understand his daughter’s perspective if he’s never experienced it himself? This is us trying to find some common ground on subjects where very little exists.
Hi ******:
You are kidding yourself if you think corporations can ever be something other than “ethically detached.” It is up to government to create limits because other interest groups (stockholders, creditors, customers, suppliers, employees) never will. I do not see the gap between the “haves and the have-nots” to be a real problem though it is a large perceived problem. The real problem is the stagnation in the opportunities of the have-nots. This may seem a moot distinction, but it is very important because if you focus on the gap between the two, the inevitable solutions will be to cut the “haves” down to size even if this makes the have-nots worse off. It comes in a variety of forms, but this “solution” is perpetually proposed by the Democrats. Yes, the Republicans do a worse job of creating and maintain appropriate limits on capitalism, but this is different type of mistake. Both parties take the easy road to getting votes, but neither road is productive for the country. It comes back to the fact that the only body that can solve certain problems is the government, and the government is ultimately determined by the voters. If you are looking for a villain, look at the voters: blaming those in power is much too easy. We little guys gave the politicians power.
There are a lot of problems that the government can not solve. Feminist issues are unlikely to be solved by government. Every society throughout history has treated men and women differently. Feminist seem to think that (a) men, not women, are oppressive, and (b) men and women are the same. They should make up their mind. Men and women are obviously very different, and you are recognizing that when you are upset that women are trying to compete by men. By “compete,” I assume you are referring to the adoption of values such as the value placed on winning at all costs. Some women already have similar values and these women are having success in the job market comparable to men. Studies find that women make over 90% of the salary than men do with comparable education and experience. The 70-76% figure that feminists quote is caused by women being out of the work force, either raising families or doing community work or supporting their spouse in other ways. Ironically, the apparent low ratio of women/men pay is caused by women making choices that are DIFFERENT than men make. To me, feminism should support women’s ability to reject male values; for example, by choosing to NOT compete for the most money in the market place. A large percentage of young women have as their primary goal in life to raise a family and be the primary caregiver. This has always been true and is a big contrast to the goals of men.
In my opinion, the roles that women and men play in America have become highly varied and uncertain. The libertarian in me thinks that it is wonderful that people can choose whatever they want, but the drawback is that this is not necessarily a stable condition for a society to be in. Stable societies lack certain freedoms, but the participants know what roles they are supposed to play. Our new-found freedoms are conflicting with our cultural identity. We provide people with respect or disrespect based on how their behavior fits into the roles we expect them to play. If a person uses their new-found freedom to do something unexpected, like remain single and not compete for the most money, others will classify them according to traditional categories like “old maid” or “unsuccessful business person.” Never mind that the person is doing something that we are supposedly celebrating; using their freedoms to make choices that differ from traditional roles. The end result of all this is that everybody seems to be uncertain of how they fit in; we all seem to be mad at everybody else. The “successful” people do not get universal adulation that they assume is their due. The standard of living for the “have-nots” has improved dramatically every decade in the 20th century, although that may have halted since the millennium. Despite the incredible improvements in their welfare, both men and women “have-nots” of today are less satisfied and less optimistic than they were 100 years ago.
I just ordered a copy of “The Gender Knot.” Thanks for the blog cite.
Your political writing is very insightful and clear. You should start a blog devoted to it.
Dad
It is he who is insightful as I already have a blog. hehe
Now, a lot of what he’s saying makes sense and is seemingly valid from the perspective of someone who identifies himself as part of the mainstream and is insulated in academe from directly experiencing the competition and greed we’re discussing here and who has little interest in radical change. For my part, I have chosen to opt out as well, confining myself to self-employment (prostitution, caregiving, freelance website design, etc.) as a means to earn a living without sucking up to Corporate America and to escape feeling forced to accept my rank in a system I renounce. My run-ins with working for corporations are few and far-between, and I am still relatively young, but his are non-existent having never worked for one. But, he gets to experience life within academia up-close and personal, which is a unique perspective unto itself.
But either way, at the end of the day, he voted for and continues to support Bush. While he wants to see certain things change, he’s seeing it from within the framework with little imagination for other options. Yes, that irritates me. He and I email to one another because we’d likely fight if we went into too much depth on these topics in person, both being hot-headed and all. He IS on the opposite side of the fence from me, and I really wish he could open up to the reality from where I stand. He is, after all, the only father I’ve ever known.
With that said, it is what it is. Again, I can’t change a person, but only maybe help him or her to grow, and vice versa. He’s taught me a lot on other topics, so maybe here we can both a learn a thing or two. Maybe.
Oh, but it was hard to read some of that! lol How’s he gonna say, “I do not see the gap between the “haves and the have-nots” to be a real problem though it is a large perceived problem. The real problem is the stagnation in the opportunities of the have-nots.” Damn! Really?! Stagnation? Not the excessive competition and money-hording at the top? I’m sure he considers that an issue too, but in his view the “ideal” is to have everybody come up without having to bring anybody else down in the process. But THAT is unrealistic and proven just about to be impossible. And that’s where we split.
Hopefully he’ll read the book soon so that maybe we’re a bit more in sync on the terms, definitions, and key concepts during future conversations.
Newsvine
